I don't know whether to post this on the pedophilia board, or the religion board.

Pedophilia is rampant in Buddhist monasteries in Asia. The custom of giving small children away to monasteries full of celibate adults is a recipe for disaster. The children aren't allowed to leave the monasteries once they're admitted, until they're 21. In Tibetan monasteries, if the boys try to run away to escape chronic rape and molestation, they're hunted down by "warrior monks", and forcibly returned to the monastery. Their parents have no idea what goes on, and trust the monks and lamas completely. In Sri Lanka and Taiwan there have been lawsuits filed by groups of child-novices against their monk- or abbot-tormentors, yet the problem continues.

Even more alarming is the news that Southeast Asian monks in the US have enticed children into private quarters for sexual molestation, and in spite of complaints and even criminal charges filed, the perps have avoided sanction. One monk's m.o. was to set up a tutoring service for grade-school kids. He avoided legal authorities by leaving the US, then returning to a different State, and starting his illicit activities over again. The US monasteries harboring these criminals are uncooperative with police. Where is the FBI when you need them?

How can anyone believe that Buddhism is the much-vaunted "religion of kindness" when thinking about the trauma children suffer as a result of living in (or near) monasteries full of pedophiles? As adults, the ex-monks suffer from unresolved Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, arrested emotional and intellectual development, and a slew of other problems. We may not be able to do anything about the monastic abuse going on in Asia, but these monk-perverts shouldn't have access to kids in Western countries, nor should they be able to avoid prosecution if they do commit these crimes.

I had just been sent an article on child abuse in monasteries, and hopefully it is okay to print a news article, if not let me know.

Buddhist Monks Walk Away from Sex-abuse Cases

Across the U.S., temples frustrate investigators by insisting they have no control over monks' actions, whereabouts

A woman who alleges she was sexually assaulted by a monk at a Theravada Buddhist temple in Chicago holds her 11-year-old daughter, who was conceived, according to her mother, during the assaults.

The meeting took place at Wat Dhammaram, a cavernous Theravada Buddhist temple on the southwest edge of Chicago. A tearful 12-year-old told three monks how another monk had turned off the lights during a tutoring session, lifted her shirt and kissed and fondled her breasts while pressing against her, according to a lawsuit.

Shortly after that meeting, one of the monks sent a letter to the girl's family, saying the temple's monastic community had resolved the matter, the lawsuit says.

The "wrong doer had accepted what he had done," wrote P. Boonshoo Sriburin, and within days would "leave the temple permanently" by flying back to Thailand.

"We have done our best to restore the order," the letter said.

But 11 years later, the monk, Camnong Boa-Ubol, serves at a temple in California, where he says he interacts with children even as he faces a second claim, supported by DNA, that he impregnated a girl in the Chicago area.

Sriburin acknowledges that restoring order did not involve stopping Boa-Ubol from making the move to California. And it did not involve issuing a warning to the temple there. Wat Dhammaram didn't even tell its own board of directors what happened with the monk, he said.

"We have no authority to do anything. … He has his own choice to live anywhere," Sriburin said.

A Tribune review of sexual abuse cases involving several Theravada Buddhist temples found minimal accountability and lax oversight of monks accused of preying on vulnerable targets.

Because they answer to no outside ecclesiastical authority, the temples respond to allegations as they see fit. And because the monks are viewed as free agents, temples claim to have no way of controlling what they do next. Those found guilty of wrongdoing can pack a bag and move to another temple — much to the dismay of victims, law enforcement and other monks.

"You'd think they'd want to make sure these guys are not out there trying to get into other temples," said Rishi Agrawal, the attorney for a victim of a west suburban monk convicted of battery for sexual contact last fall. "What is the institutional approach here? It seems to be ignorance and inaction."

Paul Numrich, an expert on Theravada temples in the United States, said that like clergy abuse in other religious organizations, sex offenses are especially egregious because monks are supposed to live up to a higher spiritual calling. The monks take a vow of celibacy.

But he cautioned against any sweeping generalizations.

"I'm sure most of the monks are living up to their calling," said Numrich, a professor at the Theological Consortium of Greater Columbus, Ohio.

'A free land'

Theravada temples surfaced in the U.S. in the 1970s to serve immigrants from Southeast Asia. They have grown by the hundreds, serving as homes to religious, cultural and educational activities, such as Sunday school.

Theravada monks who come here from Thailand report only to their temple's head monk and board of directors, said Phramaha Thanat Inthisan, secretary-general of the Council of Thai Bhikkhus in the U.S.

The council offers advice and other support to the Thai monks based in the U.S., he said, but doesn't keep track of everyone's name and has no authority over the monks. Neither do the religious leaders in Thailand.

Theravada monks who travel here from other countries, often on temporary religious visas, experience a similar lack of oversight, experts say.

"In America, it's a free land," said Bunsim Chuon, who assists the president of the Community of Khmer Buddhist Monks Center, a national association of Cambodian Theravada temples in the U.S.

Consider the case of Chaliaw Chetawan, who was convicted of battery after a 2010 attack at Wat Buddhadhamma, a temple outside west suburban Willowbrook.

A 30-year-old man told authorities that Chetawan, a Thai monk, held him against his will in the temple's bathroom, groped him and tried to force inappropriate conduct.

"It was very forceful," the man testified in court. "It was very humiliating."

In a civil suit, the victim alleges that the temple ignored earlier instances of sexual misconduct. The claim is echoed by another man who alleges the temple's leaders laughed when he reported being groped in 2009.

Chetawan is not here to face the lawsuit. In fact, it's unclear where he is.

Just as Chetawan was to begin a year of probation, a DuPage County judge agreed to release him from his court-ordered supervision after his attorney said the monk would be sent back to Thailand and stripped of his title for breaking the vow of celibacy.

No responsibility

But when a Tribune reporter inquired, two monks at the suburban temple could not confirm Chetawan was in Thailand or deny rumors that he had remained in the U.S. The monks said he was no longer of concern to the temple.

What gets me is how so many monasteries do this. I was in a Zen monastery where a child was taken away by his parents, but the claim was, We have a tape recording of this, so it didn't happen, and yet another monk who left said that the monastery was abuzz with talk about this child and sex abuse, that the monks were still gossiping about it.

And then I read this article that was sent to me yesterday, and I think, is this no different than the Pope's reaction? It isn't.

My feeling is that Tibetan Buddhism could be the worse since they use young children in their tantric rituals in Tibet and more than likely now India.

Sonam wrote:I don't know whether to post this on the pedophilia board, or the religion board.

Pedophilia is rampant in Buddhist monasteries in Asia. The custom of giving small children away to monasteries full of celibate adults is a recipe for disaster. The children aren't allowed to leave the monasteries once they're admitted, until they're 21. In Tibetan monasteries, if the boys try to run away to escape chronic rape and molestation, they're hunted down by "warrior monks", and forcibly returned to the monastery. Their parents have no idea what goes on, and trust the monks and lamas completely. In Sri Lanka and Taiwan there have been lawsuits filed by groups of child-novices against their monk- or abbot-tormentors, yet the problem continues.

Even more alarming is the news that Southeast Asian monks in the US have enticed children into private quarters for sexual molestation, and in spite of complaints and even criminal charges filed, the perps have avoided sanction. One monk's m.o. was to set up a tutoring service for grade-school kids. He avoided legal authorities by leaving the US, then returning to a different State, and starting his illicit activities over again. The US monasteries harboring these criminals are uncooperative with police. Where is the FBI when you need them?

How can anyone believe that Buddhism is the much-vaunted "religion of kindness" when thinking about the trauma children suffer as a result of living in (or near) monasteries full of pedophiles? As adults, the ex-monks suffer from unresolved Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, arrested emotional and intellectual development, and a slew of other problems. We may not be able to do anything about the monastic abuse going on in Asia, but these monk-perverts shouldn't have access to kids in Western countries, nor should they be able to avoid prosecution if they do commit these crimes.

The point isn't about "monastics" and "diversity"; the point is about MEN: specifically, men who are grouped together, and men who are all trying not to have sex. Is that a ticking time bomb — irrespective of any religion? Damn right it is. Why? Because it doesn't work, except while the bomb is ticking — everything is quiet and peaceful, until then. (Which is really the very definition of a "ticking time bomb," isn't it?) Then, when the timer runs out, there's an explosion (or, in this case, an eruption). There isn't anything "simplistic" about that, but there is everything simple about it. And yet, people persist in trying to believe that, because someone claims "this" as his religion or "that" as his philosophy, somehow the "invisible spirit" (or whatever) is going to impart some special grace or singular dispensation that magically circumvents biology. Forget it.

And, in one sense, that's okay: people are free to believe whatever fucked-up thing floats their boats. If they want to believe that Buddhist monks or Catholic priests or Mormon elders (or whoever) are all managing — "successfully" — to live without having sex (a completely un-natural state of existence for any biological entity, especially when prolonged — and most especially when interminable!), then big whoop.

Until you introduce children into the equation.

Because yes, there are going to be a certain percentage of human males (not all, not half, but some) — irrespective of religion! — who are going to be just that fucked up. And when people then try to insert children into that (at best) questionable situation, then other people need to take those silly beliefs of those believers, and shove them up their collective ass.

Leave. The kids. The hell. Out of it.

"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."

Simulist wrote:The point isn't about "monastics" and "diversity"; the point is about MEN: specifically, men who are grouped together, and men who are all trying not to have sex. Is that a ticking time bomb — irrespective of any religion? Damn right it is. Why? Because it doesn't work, except while the bomb is ticking — everything is quiet and peaceful, until then. (Which is really the very definition of a "ticking time bomb," isn't it?) Then, when the timer runs out, there's an explosion (or, in this case, an eruption). There isn't anything "simplistic" about that, but there is everything simple about it. And yet, people persist in trying to believe that, because someone claims "this" as his religion or "that" as his philosophy, somehow the "invisible spirit" (or whatever) is going to impart some special grace or singular dispensation that magically circumvents biology. Forget it.

Acutally, you're reasoning is simplistic and naive. You believe in one-trick pony answers to complex scenarios. A complex scenario contains multitudes and a root cause analysis never leads to a single issue that enables a problem. You automatically take it that ALL men who voluntarily decide not to have sex have problems, when in fact these problems are anomolous. It has nothing to do with religion, philosophy or mysticism. Biology circumvents itself. There are people born with varying degrees of sexual inclination, drive, and plasticity that feeds back to the environmental influences. Celibate men can either interact well or poorly with children. Promiscuous men can interact well or poorly with children. Pedophilia itself is anomolous behavior and by using a single rule-of-thumb pedestrian label on a problem is misleading and not very granular.

Our truth consists of illusions that we have forgotten are illusions - Nietzsche

Simulist wrote:The point isn't about "monastics" and "diversity"; the point is about MEN: specifically, men who are grouped together, and men who are all trying not to have sex. Is that a ticking time bomb — irrespective of any religion? Damn right it is. Why? Because it doesn't work, except while the bomb is ticking — everything is quiet and peaceful, until then. (Which is really the very definition of a "ticking time bomb," isn't it?) Then, when the timer runs out, there's an explosion (or, in this case, an eruption). There isn't anything "simplistic" about that, but there is everything simple about it. And yet, people persist in trying to believe that, because someone claims "this" as his religion or "that" as his philosophy, somehow the "invisible spirit" (or whatever) is going to impart some special grace or singular dispensation that magically circumvents biology. Forget it.

Acutally, you're reasoning is simplistic and naive. You believe in one-trick pony answers to complex scenarios. A complex scenario contains multitudes and a root cause analysis never leads to a single issue that enables a problem. You automatically take it that ALL men who voluntarily decide not to have sex have problems, when in fact these problems are anomolous. It has nothing to do with religion, philosophy or mysticism. Biology circumvents itself. There are people born with varying degrees of sexual inclination, drive, and plasticity that feeds back to the environmental influences. Celibate men can either interact well or poorly with children. Promiscuous men can interact well or poorly with children. Pedophilia itself is anomolous behavior and by using a single rule-of-thumb pedestrian label on a problem is misleading and not very granular.

The problem here really is with "anomalous" behavior, isn't it? The problem is also that this kind of anomalous behavior seems to be happening often-enough in so-called "celibate" communities that it's a problem.

(And if you're going to call someone's reasoning "simplistic and naive," couldn't you at least bother to get your spelling and grammar right in the paragraph where you do it?)

"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."

Simulist wrote:The problem here really is with "anomalous" behavior, isn't it? The problem is also that this kind of anomalous behavior seems to be happening often-enough in so-called "celibate" communities that it's a problem.

I'm sure you realize that sexual child abuse is more prevalent among non-monatics...yet you're not foaming at the mouth about that though.

(And if you're going to call someone's reasoning "simplistic and naive," couldn't you at least bother to get your spelling and grammar right in the paragraph where you do it?)

I type fast and didn't check my spelling. I thought you would overlook that in favor of the crux of the discussion instead of being a grammar nazi. Grow up.

Our truth consists of illusions that we have forgotten are illusions - Nietzsche

Simulist wrote:The problem here really is with "anomalous" behavior, isn't it? The problem is also that this kind of anomalous behavior seems to be happening often-enough in so-called "celibate" communities that it's a problem.

I'm sure you realize that sexual child abuse is more prevalent among non-monatics...yet you're not foaming at the mouth about that though.

No, I'm not foaming about that here. Because that is not the topic under discussion here.

Celibacy is a problem, not only because it is false and misleading, but also because it leads to a number of other problems, some of which are notably harmful.

matrixdutch wrote:

(And if you're going to call someone's reasoning "simplistic and naive," couldn't you at least bother to get your spelling and grammar right in the paragraph where you do it?)

I type fast and didn't check my spelling. I thought you would overlook that in favor of the crux of the discussion instead of being a grammar nazi. Grow up.

Your post was not only rude to me personally, but it was also as poorly-thought-out as it was written — to the point that it didn't even seem that you read what was written before offering the appearance of a knee-jerk response.

For example, your statement that I "believe in one-trick pony answers to complex scenarios" is a blanket statement that is simply (and blatantly) incorrect — both generally and, in this case, specifically. No solution has been offered, merely one aspect of the problem identified.

The problem is child sexual abuse. Even if there weren't "celibacy" (or the appearance of it) in religious communities, the greater problem would still persist — but, for one thing, it wouldn't have some of the veneer of respectability that helps it flourish.

matrixdutch wrote:You automatically take it that ALL men who voluntarily decide not to have sex have problems, when in fact these problems are anomolous.

I think that all men (or, at the very least, nearly all men) who voluntarily decide not to have sex do eventually have problems — and even if the problems are anomalous, they are nevertheless problems. Not acknowledging the true scope of those problems has helped to create the false, misleading, and sometimes volatile situation that exists today both inside so-called "celibate" communities and beyond them.

It has nothing to do with religion, philosophy or mysticism.

It does if that "religion, philosophy, or mysticism" convinces people to push "STOP" on otherwise natural drives. It does if that "religion, philosophy, or mysticism" gives predators unwarranted respectability and shields them even as they perpetrate other crimes. It does when that "religion, philosophy, or mysticism" tells people that — if they are "faithful" enough or "enlightened" enough — they can utterly suppress biological drives with no harm to themselves or others. So yes, such silly beliefs are then to blame for the eruptions that ensue, however "anomalous."

matrixdutch wrote:Biology circumvents itself.

I'm not sure what you're really trying to say with that.

There are people born with varying degrees of sexual inclination, drive, and plasticity that feeds back to the environmental influences.

I agree that there are varying degrees of these things. Absolutes are often unnatural — and yet, celibacy is an absolute. ("Remain Celibate!" is also a little like telling people that — whatever they do! — not to think of a white elephant.)

There is a problem — and in this case a biological problem — endemic to the very nature of lifelong attempted celibacy.

matrixdutch wrote:Celibate men can either interact well or poorly with children. Promiscuous men can interact well or poorly with children.

Yes, I've witnessed both. I've also watched as the attempt to remain celibate has, over time, twisted many, many men into caricatures of themselves.

matrixdutch wrote:Pedophilia itself is anomolous behavior and by using a single rule-of-thumb pedestrian label on a problem is misleading and not very granular.

I am saying that celibacy doesn't normally work over the long haul. I'm saying that telling people to abstain from sex for prolonged periods — and especially for a lifetime — creates unnecessary problems. Most just can't remain celibate for protracted periods any more than most people can abstain from food for the rest of their lives; when people attempt this, there are, inevitably, "anomalous problems." I am NOT saying that celibacy creates pedophiles. But I am saying that when someone has an inclination or orientation towards pedophilia — and has one of those "anomalous problems" you've mentioned — that this can be exceedingly dangerous for a child. When you combine that with the unwarranted respectability religious institutions get by claiming that attempted celibacy creates real chastity (a lie, to be sure! — I've observed quite the opposite to be true too many times to enumerate, unfortunately), I think a false and potentially dangerous situation is being created, including for children.

"The most strongly enforced of all known taboos is the taboo against knowing who or what you really are behind the mask of your apparently separate, independent, and isolated ego."

Simulist wrote:If you get a bunch of human males together, and then convince them to avoid sexual activity, you're creating a sexual time bomb.

I could name a couple of nunneries where the same sort of thing has gone on.

If you then introduce children into the equation, you're creating a potential crime! — because a certain percentage of humans are just that fucked up.

(And why should this be so hard to figure out? Except that dogma makes people dumb…)

Alternatively if you put together a group of children you might as well put a target on their backs.

Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia

Those who dream by night in the dusty recesses of their minds wake in the day to find that all was vanity; but the dreamers of the day are dangerous men, for they may act their dream with open eyes, and make it possible. -- Lawrence of Arabia

One girl claims Somaratana abused her in the shrine room of Croydon Temple - where he has been chief monk for the past 31 years.The attacks are alleged to have taken place on one victim in Chiswick, London during the summer of 1978.A second woman claims she was indecently assaulted at Croydon Temple during the mid 1980s.Somaratana appeared at Isleworth Crown Court last week to deny all charges against him.The Sri Lankan-born monk told the court he was the victim of mistaken identity.Prosecuting Richard Merz told the court the first victim, who was nine in 1978, had been enticed into the monk’s room with fruit Polo sweets and told to sit on his lap.Later, he told the court, Ven Somaratana cornered her in the temple shrine and raped her.

He said: 'You used to see her in the corridor downstairs and ask her upstairs.'Three times this happened, three times. The victim says the person who did this to her in the shrine rooms was someone who gave her the fruit Polos.'Mr Merz added the second victim, who was aged between nine and 10 during the alleged attacks in 1984 and 85, was also enticed into his room with sweets at the temple in Selsdon, South Croydon, which he founded in 1981.He said: 'She says she was attacked by you in your room.'

The second victim only recalled the assaults during hypnotherapy sessions she underwent as an adult in 2009.

Somaratana denies the charges.

He suggested in court that another, unidentified, monk could have been responsible for raping the first victim.

And insisted it would have been impossible to carry out attacks in either his temple room or the shrine - because there was little privacy and the temple was always occupied by worshippers.

He said: 'There are so many people coming from 9am to 9pm they regularly go to the shrine room.'The trial is expected to last three weeks.

did jury service there last year...nothing very sensational ( I can't talk about it though...)